82 comments:

None of the polls make any sense. When polled about whether the country is on the right track-wrong track the polls indicate by two to one or more the country is heading down the wrong track so how does this square with the current polls? Both can't be right. Anyho we will know the real poll results on November 7th

polls indicate by two to one or more the country is heading down the wrong track so how does this square with the current polls?

That many people may not think that Obama is a good president, but they think Romney and Ryan (especially with a Republican Congress) would be even worse. See how well austerity and exclusive focus on debt reduction is working out in the UK.

Polls are the last arrows in the paleo-MSM's quiver. And they're using them to keep from being totally irrelevant--their last chance at being kingmakers. Obama is behind by at least 20 pts--maybe worse because a lot of Obama voters aren't motivated to leave the house on Nov. 6th. They aren't talking Romney--yet. But staying home is a good first step.

If you assume there are the same number of self-identified Democrats and Republicans as there was in 2008 and 2006, and completely ignore the shift of those numbers toward the GOP in 2010, then sure: you would have to conclude Obama is ahead.

If you assume that voter enthusiasm is the same as 2006 and 2008, when Dem enthusiasm was high and GOP enthusiasm was low, and completely ignore the shift of those numbers toward the GOP in 2010, then sure: you would have to conclude that Obama is ahead.

But if you factor for the shift of those items in 2010, and project them in line with polls of right path/wrong path, voter enthusiasm, and party identification (which currently aren't unreasonable in light of the 2010 GOP wave), then you would have to conclude that Obama is going to lose by as much as 10 percentage points in the popular vote.

From my own unscientific (anecdotal) observations, the preference cascade is poised, and the skewed polling is the only thing that is keeping that wave from hitting.

After thinking about it a little, I'm actually pleased the polling is keeping the wave from hitting. The longer the MSM holds it back, the more broad and thorough the cascade will be.

Yes, the unrealistic over weighting of D voters is necessary to promulgate the illusion that Hussein's reelection is likely, if not inevitable.

It's done solely to manipulate the enthusiasm of the respective parties and the Rs are falling for it.

I don't think it will actually discourage and Rs from voting...they are too fired up to fire our current travesty of a president..but it gives the Ds a temporary sugar high, which is all the 2008 election was, and really all the left ever has before the inevitable disastrous reality of their policies become manifest.

I tend to agree with you, polling is the last way to hold the re-election narrative together. There is just a lot of things going wrong. As a last resort, actual vote totals that contradict the polls will be used to create suspiscion on the legitimacy of the result.

I am reminded of the image after the 2004 vote of the massive head of Keith Olbermann filling the TV screen, completely astonished that voters in the FLA panhandle would actually vote for a republican. It had to be rigged.

Freder belives that somehow national insolvency and the subsequent real austerity measures will never happen if Obama and the democrats get reelected. Magical thinking indeed.

I think many believe there is just an endless supply of money that can pay for and endless litany of government spending. I suppose our ability to print money lends to this magical thinking but it certainly tells me that they are oblivious to the consequences.

How much debt should we be shooting for then? Or is it not just a big deal because we can print money?

Currently, it is not a big deal because we can borrow money for free (interest rates for the government are currently effectively negative). The last thing we should be doing in a weak economy is focusing on debt reduction. It is a sure recipe for a double dip recession.

From my own unscientific (anecdotal) observations, the preference cascade is poised, and the skewed polling is the only thing that is keeping that wave from hitting.

And, the other part of that is that the closer we get to the election, the closer those polls have to get to reality, because that is how their reputation is made or lost. If they go into the actual election predicting a 5% win by Obama, and Romney wins, they will probably be out of business before the next election cycle.

So, I fully expect the D+ weighting to disappear over the next month or so from the more reputable polls, but when it does, that preference cascade is just another way of saying that there will be a lot of apparent momentum in Romney's favor, which may build on itself.

On Good Morning America this morning they did a hit piece premised on Romney being behind in the polls, and Republicans criticizing Romney's performance at the GOP Convention (isn't that old news?), and the revelation (stop the presses!) that there were several drafts of Romney's acceptance speech that were rejected in the writing process. This is a few days after the big news regarding Cairo and Benghazi was Romney's comment about it, rather than the failure of the State Department to protect their people.

The MSM will do whatever they can to undermine the Romney campaign. It may work.

Freder - monetary policy isn't that clear cut and easy. One thing is that the more money we borrow, the lower our credit rating, and the more expensive the borrowing will be.

Secondly, inflation is low when it comes to borrowing money right now (but not to buying gas, food, etc.), but mostly I would suspect because monetary velocity is at an extremely low point, and the low interest rates are not helping things. But, the money supply has been massively increased over the last couple of years. It is the product of those two things that result in price levels (and, thus, inflation or deflation).

One big looming problem though is what happens when interest rates start to rise as we (hopefully eventually) exit the Obama Recession? They start to rise, and now it is increasingly advantageous to loan out the money everyone has in their mattresses. This, of course, also includes banks, which haven't been lending as much because they won't make anything on lending. So, as people start to lend, monetary velocity picks up, and, whammo, all that extra money the Fed printed is multiplied (literally and figuratively) by the higher velocity, and price levels take off even faster. Of course, the major factor in interest rates with a stable money supply is inflation expectations, which means interest rates respond, and velocity increases some more, and the cycle continues.

Of course, the Fed could be fast enough on its feet that it sucks all the newly printed money out of the system fast enough that this doesn't happen...

But, that brings up the second problem - that the borrowed money has to be paid back, and financing the debt with higher interest rates (which is probably inevitable if we get out of the recession) is going to get increasingly expensive. Prohibitively so.

Finally, why not cut the borrowing? After all, it hasn't helped with the recession, and, indeed, may very well have deepened and lengthened the recession. Essentially no jobs were created with the $5 Trillion that was borrowed during the Obama Presidency. It was, essentially, money flushed down the toilet, and, yes, continuing the analogy, clogging it.

Sorry if my monetary screed got a bit confusing. There are really two things going on that are somewhat related. One is that the Fed has been pumping up the money supply - the latest splurge is the recently announced QE3. The second is the borrowing by the federal government. They are somewhat related, through both interest rates and that the Fed buys up some of that debt. But, maybe not as much so as previously, with the Fed now buying up mortgage backed securities along with government debt when it effectively "prints" money (by crediting banks with the money it spends buying debt).

Essentially no jobs were created with the $5 Trillion that was borrowed during the Obama Presidency.

I suppose I could get behind borrowing an extra trillion and change per year if we had something to show for it but as you said, 4 years and five trillion dollars later and we are still wallowing in an anemic recovery.

Paul said:"I don't think it will actually discourage and Rs from voting...they are too fired up to fire our current travesty of a president..but it gives the Ds a temporary sugar high, which is all the 2008 election was..."

If Obama wins this year (which seems likely) the Republicans will have lost 5 out of the last six national popular votes (of course winning the EC in 2000). Bush's margin of victory in 2004 was also rather small--I'm guessing smaller than Obama's will be this year. The deck is stacked agaisnt the Republicans. If they don't win this year (and they still might) each subsequent election will just get harder and harder.

Why, exactly does that seem likely? Past the MSM telling us so. I mean his economic policy is failed. His foreign policy has failed. He's betrayed his own base on several issues. The polls that use legit polling data have him behind or at best even.

TWM said: "Why, exactly does that seem likely? Past the MSM telling us so. I mean his economic policy is failed. His foreign policy has failed. He's betrayed his own base on several issues. The polls that use legit polling data have him behind or at best even.

Why is he likely to win? "

Oh for lots of reasons. Incumbents usually win. Your points are all valid, but generally in cases where incumbents have lost they were behind at this point (like Carter). If you look at any poll other than Ras nobody has a tie or Obama behind, so I don't know who you are referring to when you say those pollsters who use "legit data". You all can rely on Rasmussen solely if you like and I'm sure he'll get the numbers right in the last week, but given his past of history of showing a +R swing up until that last week (please, go look it up, it's well-documented) that seems unwise. There's plenty of Republican pollsters showing Obama in the lead, using Likely Voter screens.

It's certainly a close election, but Romney is behind. Obama has tons of baggage, but Romney isn't that great of a candidate. That's where we are. Let's see the polls (ALL the polls) next week and barring a major world event (which is also not totally unlikely), that's who I'd put money on the winner being. Based on the markets (which conservatives love, right?) that's Obama.

Colonel Angus said...Essentially no jobs were created with the $5 Trillion that was borrowed during the Obama Presidency.

I suppose I could get behind borrowing an extra trillion and change per year if we had something to show for it but as you said, 4 years and five trillion dollars later and we are still wallowing in an anemic recovery.-------------Lets add there were zero net private sector jobs created during the 5 trillion in the hole Bush II Administration as well.

12 years of tax cuts for the wealthy (The Jobs Creators (TM)!!!)from the Clinton era rates have not created jobs.

3 trillion spent on Nation-Building Noble Muslim Freedom Lovers and spent on The Heroes Who Keep Us All Safe (military, Homeland Security, on Our Bestest Ally Friends...Hasn't done much in the last 12 years.

The fact that John Corzine and each and any crook financier, banker from the 2008 debacle and the politicians they bought will not spend a day in jail..is also illustrative.

True but you can't beat something with nothing. You didn't actually believe that a gigolo who spent Christmas in Cambodia was actually going to win?By the way now that its been eight years, has Lurched ever released his discharge form, the one he promised to release?

Freder here is a question that you using your Magical Cargo Cult thinking can answer for us; if money is so cheap that more borrowing isn't harmful why cant the government just roll over the debt in to 50 year bonds?

The Democrat and liberal/progressive Jewish media tactic of demonizing Romney has been somewhat effective..with Latinos and with young single women that vote what is in their heart about Their Fantasy Boyfriend rather than what if anything is in their brains.(Otherwise, Jimmy Carter the Second would be way behind)

Polls showing a new race-tightening basically show the Bill Clinton bounce is over for now, until they deploy him, if he is willing, in the closing days...

(If I was was in the inner circle of the Romney camp, I would be feeding Bill all sorts of signals that he would be considered the defacto Head of the Democrats. The man that Romney would gladly work with and compromise with if Obama goes down, on budget and other issues..And Grover Norquist and the Neocons had no veto on compromises).

"Like it or not, spin it or not, put your head in the sand or not, attack me as the messenger or not, the very simple truth is that Mitt Romney has failed to close any deal with the voters and his message is so muddled no voter really knows what they are getting."

"Registered voters, which favors the Demos. Also within the MOE, so it could also be dead even.

Also a 7 day average which will attenuate the "bounce"."

Okay, so you don't like Gallup (I mean, it's not like they have track record or anything. How about Monmouth? Came out today. 3 days of polling (so most recent). Likely voters. Obama up by 3! MOE is 2.7. Ras is the only red on the whole RCP page.

All the polls showing Obama up have a turnout advantage that significantly favors Obama. Moreover some polls are now adjusted for turnout of men vs. women.

Dems had the actual turnout advantage in 2006 and 2008, but Republicans had the actual turnout advantage in 2004 and 2008. Obama's turnout advantage in 2008 was +7.5%!

Rasmussen shows an advantage for Republicans, which is why Rasmussen has Obama up (Rasmussen actually polls party affiliation). Gallup uses a dem advantaged turnout, which is why Gallup has Obama up.

No one knows what the turn out will be. But, I think its ridiculous to think the turnout will be like 2006 or 2008. Back in 2008. then there was significant love for Dems and Obama. That has totally evaporated. The enthusiasm for Obama has collapsed and Republicans now have much higher enthusiasm. Based on that metric, republicans could get a turnout more like 2010 than 2004.

So when you see a poll showing Obama up in Florida +5, it is all due to the model used by the pollster and not the actual poll.

If turnout is more like 2004, Romney will win all of the swing states.

"And, if he wasn't, would all the trolls be foaming at the mouth like this?"

No! Exactly right. And by trolls, I assume you're referring to people such as Professor Althouse and mysel who studiously ignore every poll except for Rasmussen in order to prove our point that Romney is WINNING!

For all of you looking at the Rasmussen partisan trend polls, I've done a graphic to illustrate the trends:

http://oi47.tinypic.com/suvqfm.jpg

Best estimate three months out from November: Rep 36.0, Dem 32.7, Ind/Other, 31.3. If election night is anything like this, Romney wins 53/47. The only thing going against Romney, and for Obama, at this point, is "likeability." So what it all boils down to is whether voters are going to ignore the economy, party identity, Obamacare, the deficit, ad infinitum, and vote on who they "like" best. God help us if they do.

The other big difference here is the money factor. People often discuss the difference in money in terms of Television coverage. However, money is also spent in significant amounts on "turn-out" programs. IN this case, Obama has a huge advantage in money in 2008.

This election is different. Romney now has the advantage, and much of that is used to turn out Republican voters.

I think the Rasmussen turn-out model will be correct. It shows a slight republican advantage, which seems to fit conventional wisdom that republicans are more enthused about the election and obama supporters are less enthused. It also reflects that Romney-Ryan is a much better team than McCain-Palin.

If you were a first time voter who came out to support Obama and Change in 2008 and you did not vote in 2010. Why would you vote in 2012? Nothing has changed or things have gotten worse. Even if you think Romney is bad too.... Instead you just don't vote... just like you didn't vote in 2004 or 2000. This is Obama's big problem.

It also my understanding that Gallup's approval rating is based on a poll of "all" adults and not Registered or Likely voters. This is why Obama only gets 48% support for registered voters and 50% support for approval for all adults. Thus, it is likely that the real approval rating for Obama among likely voters is closer to 46-47%, which is very bad for Obama. If Obama's approval rating is only 47% among likely voters, then that will be his share of the vote on election day.

Basil, a very interesting graphic. I think the partisan vote will be closer to even end then because African Americans will come out in record numbers for Obama, but Romney will win independents by double digits. Thus, I predict a 51-49 Romney win.

But again, that is only my guess. That is why all these polls are skewed becasue most of the people guessing are liberals who have a twisted view of the world. Its better to at least follow real data like Rasmussen.

From Wikipedia: The Keys to the White House is a historically based prediction system for determining the next President. They retroactively account for all popular vote winners from 1860 to 1980 and correctly predicted the popular vote winners from 1984 to 2008 (while the book was published in 1996, apparently the method was established between 1980 and 1984).

There are 13 keys, expressed as true/false statements. If 8 or more are true, the incumbent wins (historically, the incumbent has an advantage).

I starred #5 because while we're technically not in recession right now (I think), everyone's still hurting. I starred #7 because while Obama passed major legislation, it's so unpopular that repealing it has become a very viable campaign plank.

Even if you count 5 and 7 for Obama, that's 7 true statements when 8 is supposed to be the passing grade. According to Keys, Obama would lose the popular vote.

For military success: OBL is a fair point. Both sides respect that. It's tempered by the Afghan war and the snub to Israel, however.

For all three, I would want to see exactly how the book describes them. Lichtman apparently went through enough effort to describe the tests that each one could be a definite true/false for each election.

There are articles scattered throughout the web talking about applying this in 2012. Most of the top ones I've seen, including one written by Lichtman himself in May 2012, favor Obama, but some things have changed since then.

Some things to note: PPACA still seems widely popular, and I think Lichtman counts not its appeal but rather having the clout to even pass the sucker; social unrest has to be like 1968-level rioting, not just the Occupy stuff; he counts OBL as locking Key 11; he counts BHO as losing Key 12 (charisma)(!). Like I said, he has the benefit of static, falsifiable tests, based on observation of past elections. It's a theory that can be tested.

If Black voter turnout is higher than 2008, then your outcome may be about right. But everything I've seen suggests that the Dems are worried about even matching 2008, let alone doing better. Some of Obama's policies have not played well in the Black community (Gay marriage, obviously, but unemployment has to hurt, too). And since Blacks are predominantly Democrat, you are probably seeing some loss of Black support in the downward trend in the percentage identifying as Dem.